US. corporations invest and earn billions every year in Puerto Rico but they don't pay a penny in federal taxes. We the American citizens' of Puerto Rico want to assume the responsibility to pay federal taxes but the congress support the corporate welfare and keep us segregated to help their "sponsors" (I mean the US corporations) the problem is that the people ignore that and blame the puertoricans instead the US corporations and the congress. If the US. corporations and the people of Puerto Rico pay taxes like the rest of the States, the Puertoricans will have the right to vote for the president and to has representation in the congress, for those reason is why the congress and the corporations keep puertoricans segregated from the rest of the nation.

US. corporations invest and earn billions every year in Puerto Rico but they don't pay a penny in federal taxes. We the American citizens' of Puerto Rico want to assume the responsibility to pay federal taxes but the congress support the corporate welfare and keep us segregated to help their "sponsors" (I mean the US corporations) the problem is that the people ignore that and blame the puertoricans instead the US corporations and the congress. If the US. corporations and the people of Puerto Rico pay taxes like the rest of the States, the Puertoricans will have the right to vote for the president and to has representation in the congress, for those reason is why the congress and the corporations keep puertoricans segregated from the rest of the nation.

Misleading no? Doesn't a ton of federal funding go to producing products like millitary hardware that is then owned by the fed and not the state? So the final value of those products should be subtracted from the 'handouts' because the fed can profit from their sale, offsetting the taxes spent.
Also, Puerto Rico needs swift kick in the pants.

Certainly it is no coincidence, but the question becomes why do these rich people and big businesses (who trend Republican) like to live in blue states? Of course, considering recent migration patterns for individuals and businesses towards red states, that question might need to be rephrased... Why, until recently, did the blue states have more of an economic growth advantage?

I think there are many reasons for this such as how many blue states historically are more prone to industry, were once the primary advocates for capitalism/free labor competition, had considerably less social strife between races (although quite a bit more ethnic issues due to population demographic differences) which all gave them advantages for business growth. But much of that has changed. Though the blue states have historically been the major performing centers of the economy, various factors and politics have stagnated their economic power while the red states are growing exponentially in comparison.

As many like to flaunt, the Republican Party and Democratic Party political map changed significantly in the 1960s when the Dems took a pro-Civil Rights stance and the Republican Party decided to feed off white resentment towards it. However, what we tend to ignore is that the Republican Party had dropped strong Civil Rights stances as Reconstruction came to a close nearly 100 years prior to this development. The alignment of the Republican Party with business had been in effect for quite a long time and had been forged by the economic ideologies which drove much early blue state success. When the red states embraced the Republican Party (perhaps for the less than honorable reasons, but embraced they did) the red states inherited that pro-business ideology as well. For the last few decades the red states have changed significantly both because of stabilizing racial/demographic relations and a new focus on being more pro-business. The alignment with the Republican Party is still in progress in some red states and certainly not all are alike. (Of course, since we tend to define red and blue states based on their favorite national politics rather than the actual percentage of Dems & Republicans in the state governments, I'm not going to get too terribly specific.)

Naturally, the Republican Party has been forced to adapt to certain values which made the red states happier and alter some of their policies, but just as much has remained the same when it comes to core free labor and glorifying strict capitalist policies. So, just as we've seen a realignment politically with the red states and the Republican Party, we have also seen businesses as well as migration patterns align with the red states shortly afterward; patterns which we once saw with the blue states.

This is all observed correlation, of course, and we should recognize that correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but I think it is worth noting that the strength and weakness of the Republican Party is that its core values from the 1870s (and arguably even during the 1850s-1860s) have not changed drastically. Perhaps that is working for them in terms of red states becoming the new targets of migration and business investment, but that will all be irrelevant if they do not learn to attune their social ideologies with the rest of the 21st century to be more inclusive of various demographics. That is also not to say Democrats are not just as capable of being financially successful and attracting businesses as well. Unfortunately, this theory is forced to make some generalizations and paint with a broad brush which looks primarily at blue vs. red state economic performance under their respective political alignments.

In other words, this theory, though certainly imperfect and laid out simplistically without expounding nearly enough on the highly complex transformations of our political maps, proposes that in reality much of the blue states' financial success was due to former political/economic ideologies that the Republican Party was partially founded on. As the Republican Party has relocated itself into the red states, so too has the flow of economic growth. We have yet to see whether this trend, which has been building since the 1970s, will eventually lead to the red states either catching up with or potentially surpassing the blue states. Note that the migration changes began in the 1970s roughly around the same time as the Republican Party consolidated its power in the red states? Most likely not a coincidence.

But do bare in mind that just because something is not a coincidence, that does not necessarily mean it is a cause, either. The original post I responded to says it is not a coincidence more rich people are in blue states, but whether or not that is because of Democratic leadership or the lingering ruminants of when Republicans dominated those areas for over 150 years, is questionable.

Woiw...you CAN'T be that stupid, can you? Look at NY State. Do you really think it is the LIBERALS who are contributing most of the tax dollars? Or the rich WAll Street that the worthless Occupy idiots like yourself hate?

Woiw...you CAN't be that stupid, can you? Look at NY State. Do you really think it is hte LIBERALS who are contributing most of hte tax dollars? Or the rich WAll Street that the worthless Occupy idiots like yourself hate?

Woiw...you CAN't be that stupid, can you? Look at NY State. Do you really think it is hte LIBERALS who are contributing most of hte tax dollars? Or the rich WAll Street that the worthless Occupy idiots like yourself hate?

Migration changes occured because of the change in political parties in the South? No, not at all, that's a real stretch. Certin businesses couldn't headquarter in the segregated south, or draw a certain class of worker due to segregation; follow the relocation and epansin of Major sports which also correlates to this.

You're prentending that the anti-labor union south all of a sudden became that way due to republican leadership.

Oh, and rich people in blue states don't trend republican anymore, the statistics seem to bear that out.

the major industries in the southern GOP states is the military (high concentration of military bases in the South), farming (Tobacco especially) and Oil. They are not going to get any new industries any time soon.

one things is absolute. more borrowing from other contries and money printing by the federal reserve will hurt all of us economically if they keep letting it run out of control. both political parties are guilty and we all are going to have to sacrifice government services in one way or the other. the collapse of the dollar will happen eventually and we will suffer the same fate as the soviet union and the roman empire if they dont stop it. end result will be poverty for everyone!!

Another thing that makes these figures meaningless is that it doesn't specify the SOURCE of the taxes. This is the part the liberals don't get: STATES don't pay taxes to Washington, individuals and CORPORATIONS do. I wonder if the reason Delaware tops the list on net 'giving' is because 60% of the Fortune 500 is incorporated in Delaware, and they pay all that money to Washington REGARDLESS of where it's earned!

Why would you think that LIBERALS don't get it! What an ignorant statement to make! And if you look at that states that in far more then they get back - ALMOST ALL OF THEM ARE LIBERAL STATES! Do you think that they don't "get it" because they are not complaining & bellyaching? Look at the Conservative States - all recipients of far more than they contribute! Maybe LIBERALS don't mind paying taxes to help their fellow citizens! Get a grip on reality! I think in the future we should have a weighted voting formula - and states that receive more funds than they contribute should count less than those who contribute more than they receive! Something is seriously wrong with this breakdown! Why should people in some states pay for people in other states AND have equality in voting? Each State should make sure that they contribute to the Federal Government EQUALLY and not take back. And you blame liberals - those who are probably paying for your A55 to sit in your Section 8 apartment, eat & collect unemployment in your state that is a drain on the Federal Budget.

There are more millionaires in liberal states. There are also more corporate headquarters in New York, California, Delaware, so they would as Dot-lines points out, skew the results. Furthermore a lot of the money from the federal government that goes into red states are for Defense contracts or military bases. Texas has many bases and Mississippi has Ingalls Shipyard. So the perception is that the the Federal government puts more into these states than they "pay" in taxes. That is another point about the concept of welfare. You leftists call any subsidy to a company as "corporate" welfare. The problem with that characterization of what you call "corporate welfare" or where a company takes advantage of some government subsidy usually results in a tangible benefit in more jobs with the corresponding benefit of more taxes from the employees and the corporation. On the other hand - REAL WELFARE, where some minority queen keeps getting money for each illegitimate child she bears, is simply a RAT HOLE. Corporations produce wealth, welfare slime produce usually more welfare slime along with criminals.

Only 8 percent of the Federal tax revenue came from corporate taxes in 2011 (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3822). While 83 percent came from payroll and income taxes (those are working Americans).

Maybe the government can eliminate the deficit by not spending more money back in states than they contribute to the federal revenue.

Based on the 2011 Total Family Income section, it appears that in households where the combined income is $50k or more, voters tended to vote for the Republican. Voters whose households made under $50k voted for the Democrat by massive margins. If we are to believe that the middle class and upper class account for most of the taxes (regardless of whether they are in blue or red states) then it does appear that people who vote Republican are indeed the highest tax payers. So, it's incorrect to say "Liberals" (a term which can actually be applied to Democrats or Republicans, but whatever) are bearing the brunt of the tax burden while pragmatically putting up with others. It seems that when the data is altered to show individual voting patterns, it is the "conservatives" within the blue states which are bearing the highest tax burden nationally.

You do realise that the largest racial group on welfare is White don't you? Thus your "minority queen" statement seems idiotic at best and indeed, bigoted at worst. But then again, you are a 'conservative', so it's par for the course.

Are you honestly trying to sell that corporate welfare (specifically looking at the past decade) has resulted in more jobs, growth, and opportunities?! "Usually results""?! Give me an idea of how you are using "usually" here - what are your terms of "usually"?

IT is cute that you somehow attach "REAL" welfare (like the corporate variety is not even related) specifically to minority women consciously playing the system with their uterus (all illegitimate).

My remedy…. is states unable to be a net contributor to the Federal government's coffers for four consecutive years should be converted back to territorial status wherein the chief elected official of that state is appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Congress, territorial incumbents in Congress excepted. Likewise, legislatures that set state policy shall be vacated until recalled by presidential order once declared a territory.
Under this approach, no territory shall have the right to vote in a presidential election, nor elect a voting member to either house of Congress, until such time as their statehood is restored via an established, timely and uniform procedure.
This should get the deadbeats off their collective butts wouldn't you think?

This whole argument has been a joke from the very beginning, something for the liberals to cling to in their desperation for defending their religion of entitlements.

These figures are pointless without specifying HOW the money is spent on the net-recipient states. There's a difference between spending money on food stamps for a poor family in Richmond Va and paying farm subsidies in Kansas. If you want it to be fair, then fine, cut off the farm subsidies. Just don't come back whining like little wusses when you're paying $25 for a loaf of bread.

(Since that went over the head of 995 of the liberal readers, the point is that in many cases, particularly farm subsidies, or even interstate highways, the money GOES to a red state but actually benefits the people who are supposedly net "givers".)

Farm subsidies don't keep prices down, they are just handouts to farmers.. in many cases payments NOT to produce in order to keep prices UP! But the highways and rails are definitely making this report BS - the highways are transportation from state A to state B through state C, yet it makes the highways a "benefit" to state C only. It makes coastal states seem like they're getting less than they actually are.

All those subsidies do is allow american farms, to completely cut farmers from poorer countries out of the market. Prices would rise, a small fraction, and people in the third world would be able to feed themselves better.

All those subsidies do is allow american farms, to completely cut farmers from poorer countries out of the market. Prices would rise, a small fraction, and people in the third world would be able to feed themselves better.

BTW, the President has inherent power as Commander in Chief to suppress rebellion. The south fired on Fort Sumter. Where in the Constitution does it say states have the power to attack the US military?

And, then the south reaped the whirlwind of taking on an advanced economy. Not smart. My advice: Be glad we carry you.

You need to read the Constitution. He has no such authority. That authority is given to Congress. READ IT. You make up law as you go. You carry us? Not for long. Keep your head where the sun don't shine, your arrogance, ignorance and propaganda will soon be part of the ash heap of history.

"Prof" Ramirez [snicker], before you make a bigger fool of yourself throwing around terms such as "we carry you", perhaps you might want to take a crack at explaining what you're going to EAT? The 8 million New York City residents going to live in what can be grown in Central Park?

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 1.

Wish all the Recipient States who want to - WOULD Secede! Seriously - you think that some states should pay in more & other states should get more? We don't need these states that drain on our Federal Budget any more than we need to provide Foreign Aid to other countries, particularly Isreal! And just think, right now, one of the biggest donor states is being politically jacked around on recovery money from Super Storm Sandy! And Surprise, there are farms in New York State, lots of them! And California is a huge agricultural state too! As is Washington! Maybe all these ultra-conservative states - controlled by religious whackos are just not as productive as Liberal States! Why don't you think about that? Liberal States, according to the income & spending of the Federal Budget are way more productive than the Conservative States! Yet you don't hear Liberals complaining AND ALL YOU HEAR ARE COMPLAINTS from the Welfare Conservative States. What is wrong with the picture?

Geesh, you should go food shopping in NYC some time. So much of the food is imported - we do NOT NEED the Red Southern States & that is why those in those states get PAID TO NOT GROW FOOD & CROPS - do some traveling - it would be good for you

Geesh, you should go food shopping in NYC some time. So much of the food is imported - we do NOT NEED the Red Southern States & that is why those in those states get PAID TO NOT GROW FOOD & CROPS - do some traveling - it would be good for you

The apportionment of federal revenues between states was agreed upon by both political parties. This has been a contract within this nation since then. Who are you to say that this act needs to be overturned? Take a look at California,s balance in this debate. They get back almost all of the 4+ trillion in revenues.That would be due to the size of the population and also that there is a large welfare population within California, 58 billion a year currently. Over a twenty year period that is probably close to a trillion in welfare for the state of Ca. In NY, the ratio looks different. The welfare % is lower than Ca. NY also has Wall Street to pump up it,s revenues. Either way the argument has no merit as you are not talking about 39 million Democrats in California. The state used to be well mixed, but has become predominately Democrat in the voting base, and thus the governance. That explains why Ca has such dire pension troubles building up. As well as overall budgetary difficulties. The one good point that Ca always had going for it,is it,s huge economy. Even so, the liberals seem determined to kill the golden goose once again. Detroit and Rhode island show the way forward.

I have lived in Northern California all of my life. I do not take any glee in seeing worsening economic troubles for this state or for the nation at large. The reason I talk is to try and address the issues regarding the current problems. Which is probably why most of us gather here to share or debate the problems of the world. If California were to enter bankruptcy, the nation and the rest of the world would feel the economic effects. Yet the insanity of continually raising taxes so that government has more to spend will at some point lead to catastrophe. The finances of many cities and towns in California are worsening. How is that trend going to be reversed?

You do not need to rewrite history regarding the South's love of slavery to see the obvious: the Blue states are more productive than the Red states. Further, even beyond the Old Confederacy is the pure agricultural states. I used to be a Professor in Kansas. A student told me every farm in Kansas gets massive federal subsidies.

Between the superior productivity of the Blue States and the massive amount of agricultural subsidies in Red States, its pretty clear who the takers and makers are.

I am willing to bet that map looked very different before globalism (capitalism running amok without borders) and the rise of giant international corporations sent industry and real jobs overseas to countries with no labor protections.

Bring corporations and banks, the two greatest dangers to freedom and prosperity (as warned by your cherished founders) back under the heel of the people where they belong, and this map will look very different.

P.S., even in the most "red" case, 220% of GDP over 20 years is 11% of GDP per year.
So what?
Not even close to being worth the price of a shotgun wedding to a tyrannical federal union, courtesy Lincoln's illegal war.
We'll take freedom, you can keep your 11%. It is doubtlessly spent on things we don't want, anyway. Thanks, come again.

I think you may want to rethink your math. That's not how percentages work.

Using Puerto Rico (as in your example the most "red" state) their GDP over 20 years was $62.8b and their taxes minus spending was $-182.4b -182.4/62.8 + 290.44%. Now if you say income and taxes are about level over 20 years so you divide the GDP by 20 = $3.14b and divide the taxes minus spending by 20 =$-9.12b. -$9.12/3.14 still equals 290.4%.

Bu Bye - don't let the door hit you on the way out! Seriously, LEAVE - we don't need you & you are all so stupid it is sinful. The money you are draining from the Federal Government is certainly not being spent on EDUCATION

Redistributing federal funds ensures that people in the red states have a choice to work for Wal mart, or not at all, while the rich congregate in the big cities to spin their financial frauds and direct the world dollar hegemony.
Without an indentured U.S. population in the red states, nobody in the world would buy U.S. debt. The rich do not own the natural resources or the population that they treat as a commodity; but those things are needed to back up all of the printing, which is where the wealth comes from. This is the precise reason that the 16th amendment (income tax) was passed a few months BEFORE the Federal Reserve Act, which created the Fed, in 1913. The banksters were absolutely NOT going to guarantee the federal paper without an indentured population that they could take a whip to for the next 100 years.
If the red states were to secede, taking with them the vast majority of natural resources in the U.S., the blue states, esp in the northeast, with their service economies and billionaires, would no longer be able to transfer wealth to themselves with the frauds of inflation, fractional reserve banking, and securities speculation and derivatives. In fifty years the wealth would no longer be congregated in those few corners, because those frauds would no longer work.

Somehow, before 1913, the "red" states did just fine, when the redistributive federal income tax did not exist.
No reason we can't go back to that. The states would do just fine without federal help, just like they did before it existed. Texas doesn't even have a state income tax, for example. And since the entire economy of NYC is based on dollar hegemony that wouldn't exist without the taxpayer base of the red states, what would NYC produce once that hegemony is gone and they can't live off of speculation and printing?
The fact that feds bribe the states in order to dampen the secession movement does not mean that the people of those states want, or need, the funds in question. We most certainly do not. We could create a much better life for ourselves without the tyrannical constraints of union that bind us to things like GATT, NAFTA, the Patriot Act, the 1886 Santa Clara decision, the heinous "income tax"... the list goes on.

Before 1913 the red states were dirt poor and lived on the backs of black sharecroppers. So, yeah, you did just fine.

Before 1913, the blue states were comparatively (compared to the red states) wealthy but there was no significant middle class at all and the country was nowhere near as wealthy as it is now, even though the U.S. was much more wealthy (compared to the rest of the world) in 1980.

I couldn't resist. Repubs managed only 4 out of (about) 22 green, and those (Texas, Georgia, Nebraska and Arkansas) only managed pale green. Dems had about 15 greens (I guess out of 28), including all the 'big spenders'.

If you look at election exit polls Romney won the majority of every single group that made $50K or above. And this is not taking into account a split of minorities that reside within those groups since minorites overwhelmingly voted for Obama. If you striped out minorities making over $50K these numbers would have favored Romney even more.

So Romney won the majority of every group that made $50K or more yet lost the election because he lost to individuals who made below $50K. Under $30K Obama won 65%. So you really don't have to use any other math to figure this out. I think everyone can agree individuals who make $50K or more use less government entitlement programs than those making less than $50K

Also, lets take New York for example. NY may be a blue state, but wallstreet is clearly red, and how much revenue do you think would remain in NY without wallsteet?

In the end what does this tell us? It tells us that public policy is decided by people who take the most and contribute the least. Sounds like a perfect system to me.

Actually, I'm not even sure that Wall Street was red. For example, Silicon Valley went for Obama by around 70%. Palo Alto (where I live) I'm sure was well over 60% (I hardly saw a Romney sticker or sign - and I assure you, no 'takers' here). I'm sure financial people went more Republican, but then again, they're the reason why we're in this recession, so I have no allegiance to their priorities.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the Romney income margin was in the hinterlands (where everyone who wasn't poor voted Romney). e.g. in Mississippi I can guarantee you that all the poor (blacks) voted for Obama, and all the wealthier (whites) for Romney. Until and unless you get a state by state economic breakdown I'm not sure you have that much of a case.

"I think everyone can agree individuals who make $50K or more use less government entitlement programs than those making less than $50K"

I'll disagree with that. What happens is that the $50k+ crowd are living on indirect, rather than direct, benefits. Indirect benefit through the lower tax rate on dividend, capital gains, and rental income versus wage income; benefit on the phase-out of social taxes on higher incomes; benefit of the federal dollars going to high earners in the defense, automotive, government, and finance industries; benefit of the federal funds for research and development for high-income professors and researchers; benefit of landlords who receive Section-8 HUD checks for providing rent; benefit of farm land owners who receive USDA funds to plant nothing on their land; benefit of investors in countless companies receiving federal loan guarantees or SBA subsidized loans; benefit of students at Ivy League colleges taking out subsidized student loans; benefit of the wealthy physicians, pharmaceutical salesman, hospital executives, where half or more of their salaries come from the government via government insurance programs; benefit of the professional athletes and team owners who receive tax and stadium subsidies from governments; the benefit of movie stars and film executives who receive substantial direct assistance from governments to encourage local movie production; benefit of countless GIs who received free or low-cost education from the government; benefit of retired government workers, military officers, and social security recipients obtaining direct money from the government; benefit of homeowners receiving federally-backed FHA loans, low interest rates courtesy of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Reserve. Not to mention the direct government benefit of the many federal government employees ($100k+ average at the federal level) where 100% of their money comes directly from the government.

The more money you make, the more benefit you are receiving from society, it's that's simple.

That rationale is skewed. The majority of people in most groups making 50k or more did lean towards Romney but it wasn't by some massive margin and it wasn't necessarily even all groups above 50k. According to Pew, people in the 90-120k range voted for Obama 49% to 46% for Romney. Other polls have shown that the majority of people with advanced degrees vote Democrat just as the poor tend to. In 2008 Obama won the majority of voters in every income group.

The idea about entitlement groups going Democrat isn't necessarily true either. Some of Romney's strongest support was among the elderly. While I don't consider SS an entitlement, most categorize it as such like they do Medicar.

If a strong majority of people making 50k or more truly leaned conservative to any significant degree then the Democrats would be hard pressed to win the majority of the elections in the wealthy states, yet they consistently do. There are no shortage of wealthy people who lean left, even if there are slightly more who lean right.

Obama raised $53 million more than Romney did in campaign funding. If the Republicans truly commanded as much wealth in the rich states as you're suggesting then that would not likely have happened either. California has no shortage of wealthy Democrats considering our tech and film industries. Heck, even many wall street and financial guys like Jamie Dimon and George Soros vote Democrat.

Chad Walsh - you wrote "Also, lets take New York for example. NY may be a blue state, but wallstreet is clearly red, and how much revenue do you think would remain in NY without wallsteet?"

Well hate to break the news to you, but basically Wall Street is BLUE except for the very top CEOs who give millions to the Political Campaigns - geesh, have you ever lived in NYC? And $50K and under $30K divided the voting. . . .SOURCE PLEASE - I need to see where you got this so called Fact from!

Shawn Hunt answered perfectly. The monied 'burbs, which were always a republican stronghold, went for Obama, probably due to the scary social issues stances of the GOP in the last cycle. Soccer moms don't hate gays, seem to be pro-choice, and don't want too much old timey religion in their daily lives.

And what, exactly, does Wall Street contribute? Maybe if we worked as hard to improve the lives of those making less than 50k than those making more than 50k, we wouldn't be pay out as much in entitlements. Ya think?

Regional transfer happen all the time, the difference, up until the 1970s, most poorer states (the South) in the US voted according to the their pocket book. In most other Western countries as far as I know they still do, Canada, UK, Italy, Belgium etc. North of England, Scotland always goes to Labor, in Canada its Alberta is always Conservative.

However, because of the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement, no serious US politician would call the South moochers. Whereas in other countries, its a very very heated issue. The Northern Front in Italy are defined solely on this issue. Luckily for the South, the Democratic Party has a large constituency (Blacks) that have strong roots in the South. Had it not been for the Blacks, the political discourse would be defined largely on regional lines like they are in other places. Most Southern whites don't have as many trans-regional ties (relatives outside the South) as Blacks. There was no great movement of Southern Whites to northern states, like what happened with African Americans.

The stat you're missing is income distribution. Most of the green states I imagine will have high populations at the extremes whereas the red states will have more even distribution just based on urban versus rural.

Not that true. I don't have a URL handy, but you can probably google and find it. Yes, the biggest cities have the worst inequality, but after them comes the South, huge swaths of which come very close to NYC.

The reason why the U.S. is a leader in income inequality has nothing to do with global capitalism. It has everything to do with tax policy and with the worship of greed which produced that tax policy.

The rich decide how much everyone else earns. When given an incentive, like lower tax rates, they take advantage of it by removing capital from productive business enterprises to put it in their own pockets. They then don't spend much of it, preferring instead to buy the think which they most prize - a greater net worth (on paper). They have to pay for it somehow, and that payment comes out of the salaries of those they employ. It's not rocket science.